Bill Clinton calls U.S. healthcare immoral

my2hands

Health Care System Broken, Clinton Says
By Janine DeFao
The San Francisco Chronicle

Saturday 14 April 2007

San Francisco - The dire state of the nation's health care system is threatening the country's well-being, former President Bill Clinton told a receptive crowd in San Francisco on Saturday.

"Our health care system is immoral because it doesn't provide health care to everybody," said Clinton, the keynote speaker at KCBS Health Etc., a daylong symposium at the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium. "It's wildly uneconomical. We pay more than everybody else in the world for less."

"It is sowing the seeds of its own destruction," said Clinton, who said health care is one of the top three problems the country faces, along with economic inequality and energy dependence.

Clinton was warmly received by the crowd, which leapt to its feet in the first of three standing ovations before he began speaking.

"I jump at any chance to come back to San Francisco. You've been very good to me," he said.

Like a patient professor trying to break down a complex issue for his students, Clinton used a plethora of statistics, and a touch of humor, in his indictment of the current state of American health care.

He said the United States spends 16 percent its national income on health care, compared with 11 percent in Canada and Switzerland, the countries with the next highest spending. That gap represents $800 billion a year, he said.

Yet the United States ranks only 37th in the world in overall health care, insures fewer of its citizens and pays more for its drugs, Clinton said.

Nearly a third of U.S. health care spending goes to administrative costs, the highest in the world, he said.

"We're letting the health insurance financing tail wag the health-care dog," he said.

Clinton, who has spent much of his post-presidential years working to address the worldwide AIDS epidemic, said American taxpayers spend $10,000 a year for AIDS treatments that cost $3,500 in other countries.

He mentioned the pharmaceutical industry's opposition to importing cheaper, generic drugs from Canada.

He said the industry wants people to believe that "if you take it when it crosses the border, you will immediately drop dead. It's the same medicine. (Canadians) don't drop dead," he said to laughter. "They've developed generic immunity, an immunity to cheap drugs."

Clinton does not deny that some Americans have access to excellent health care, saying the success of his 2004 emergency quadruple heart bypass surgery makes him "a walking miracle."

But he said his case is also an example that not enough is being done on the prevention side.

"We are great about treating sickness, but we are lousy at keeping people well," said Clinton, who also is working on the issue of childhood obesity. "We are running the risk of raising the first generation of children to live shorter lives than their parents."

Clinton said he hasn't totally sworn off McDonalds but has been only twice in the past six years, on what he jokingly referred to as "childhood obesity field trips." Worried about his cholesterol, he now avoids hamburgers but likes "those little fried pies."

Clinton - whose wife, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, is seeking the Democratic nomination for president - didn't advocate a solution to the health-care crisis but said there are several options.

While health care was the topic of the day, Clinton couldn't resist a lengthy answer when asked about Iraq by KCBS reporter Mike Sugerman, refusing to wrap up when Sugerman tried to cut him off.

"You asked me about this. You're going to get an answer," Clinton said testily.

He said the United States shouldn't withdraw immediately but should cease combat operations and implement a "substantial drawdown of American troops" this year.

Following his speech, Clinton stepped down from the stage and spent more than an hour signing autographs and taking pictures with people while others stood on their chairs, craning for a glimpse.

"He's always amazing because he has such a depth of knowledge on every issue he's asked," said Santa Cruz resident Helen Isherwood, who paid $75 for her second-row seat. "We so need a political hero, and he's it for the Bay Area."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/14/BAG7BP8VJV3.DTL

prism

ahhh....it's so nice to hear some common sense....I've missed Bubba.

Staceb10

So is he saying it was good when he was President and now its "immoral" but his wifey poo is going to fix it? Give me a break. I like Bill and I don't disagree that there is a lot of room for improvement of the healthcare system but Billy boy was President at one time and I don't see any universal healthcare system him implemented.

RainDog

Staceb10 wrote:

So is he saying it was good when he was President and now its "immoral" but his wifey poo is going to fix it? Give me a break. I like Bill and I don't disagree that there is a lot of room for improvement of the healthcare system but Billy boy was President at one time and I don't see any universal healthcare system him implemented.

It was one of the first things his administration tried to do, but the initial plan was defeated by Congress. By the time he could try again, there was a new Congress, and it was even more unfriendly toward his plans. So, no, he wasn't saying it was good when he was president.

South of Seattle

my2hands wrote:

Worried about his cholesterol, he now avoids hamburgers but likes "those little fried pies."

So I guess we know he still inhales

chopitdown

my2hands wrote:

"I jump at any chance to come back to San Francisco. You've been very good to me," he said.

I'll say they have... "Monica Samille Lewinsky (born July 23, 1973 in San Francisco, California)...you know the rest"

farfromglorified

Black people are immoral because they don't provide labor to everybody.

farfromglorified

Women are immoral because they don't provide children to everybody.

farfromglorified

Bill Clinton is immoral because he doesn't provide healthcare to everyone.

baraka

Alright, ffg, it appears you're trying to make a point, although I'm not sure what it is. Do you feel that only those who can afford Healthcare (as it stands today) should have access to it? What are your solutions to help the 44 million uninsured? Or the millions more with 'shotty' healthcare?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Alright, ffg, it appears you're trying to make a point, although I'm not sure what it is. Do you feel that only those who can afford Healthcare (as it stands today) should have access to it?

Of course. Do you think only those who can afford your labor should have access to it? Or can I enslave you to mow my lawn or research my lab? Do you think only those who can love you and respect you should have access to your children? Or can I simply enlist you as a breeding machine?

What are your solutions to help the 44 million uninsured?

Well, roughly 15-20% of them are already eligible for state funded programs (most of them children). They simply haven't been signed up. Another significant percentage is well above the poverty line and simply chooses not to purchase insurance. Another 20% of that number are not even American citizens and would likely remain uninsured.

The true number of people that would get insurance from UHC that do not have it today is much closer to 15 million people. That's 3.5% of the population. And I have no solution to that because "solution" would imply a problem. 15 million uninsured people isn't a problem. It's many problems with a diverse set of solutions ranging from social support to individual effort, and places in between.

Or the millions more with 'shotty' healthcare?

How do you define "shotty healthcare"?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course. Do you think only those who can afford your labor should have access to it? Or can I enslave you to mow my lawn or research my lab? Do you think only those who can love you and respect you should have access to your children? Or can I simply enlist you as a breeding machine?



Well, roughly 15-20% of them are already eligible for state funded programs (most of them children). They simply haven't been signed up. Another significant percentage is well above the poverty line and simply chooses not to purchase insurance. Another 20% of that number are not even American citizens and would likely remain uninsured.

The true number of people that would get insurance from UHC that do not have it today is much closer to 15 million people. That's 3.5% of the population. And I have no solution to that because "solution" would imply a problem. 15 million uninsured people isn't a problem. It's many problems with a diverse set of solutions ranging from social support to individual effort, and places in between.



How do you define "shotty healthcare"?

As I expected - a verbose but well written expansion of the simple phrase "Not My Problem."

Of course, I'd disagree and say that it is your problem, at least partially, in that we all live in this society and that it's our responsibility to keep it healthy - both physically and economically. A response that'd likely be "as you expected...."

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

As I expected - a verbose but well written expansion of the simple phrase "Not My Problem."

It's deeper than that, but I certainly agree that this, by default, is "Not My Problem".

Of course, I'd disagree and say that it is your problem, at least partially, in that we all live in this society and that it's our responsibility to keep it healthy - both physically and economically. A response that'd likely be "as you expected...."

Yes, I did expect mass-generalizations

It is not my responsibility to keep this society healthy. It is my responsibility to keep myself healthy. A healthy society can contribute to this. A society that treats property with no respect and bends the will of millions to the needs of a few is not a healthy society.

boxwine_in_hell

Bill Clinton calling anything immoral is pretty funny. It's really basic irony but still hilarious. And before you liberal Dems get your panties in a wad....I'm a liberal Dem.

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

It's deeper than that, but I certainly agree that this, by default, is "Not My Problem".



Yes, I did expect mass-generalizations

It is not my responsibility to keep this society healthy. It is my responsibility to keep myself healthy. A healthy society can contribute to this. A society that treats property with no respect and bends the will of millions to the needs of a few is not a healthy society.

Actually, it's bending the will of millions to the needs of millions (though less millions, of course).

Every other Western nation has some form of universal healthcare. Are they, then, unhealthy societies?

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course. Do you think only those who can afford your labor should have access to it? Or can I enslave you to mow my lawn or research my lab? Do you think only those who can love you and respect you should have access to your children? Or can I simply enlist you as a breeding machine?

:eek:. I see this as a moral problem. I know you and I have very different philosophical perspectives. I hoping you are just playing devil's advocate here.

farfromglorified wrote:

Well, roughly 15-20% of them are already eligible for state funded programs (most of them children). They simply haven't been signed up. Another significant percentage is well above the poverty line and simply chooses not to purchase insurance. Another 20% of that number are not even American citizens and would likely remain uninsured.

The true number of people that would get insurance from UHC that do not have it today is much closer to 15 million people. That's 3.5% of the population. And I have no solution to that because "solution" would imply a problem. 15 million uninsured people isn't a problem. It's many problems with a diverse set of solutions ranging from social support to individual effort, and places in between.

Unless I am not understanding you, you are saying there is no problem with our current system. Here is some light reading for you.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2006-10-15-health-concern-usat_x.htm

WHO is a good source of info if you are interested in wading through all the material.

http://www.who.int/whosis/en/index.html

U.S. healthcare coverage is one of the most incomplete and unequal in the developed world. About 40 million are not covered by any health insurance. The richest 5% of the population account for 55% of total healthcare spending while the bottom 50% of the population account for only 3% of total spending. Furthermore, standard health insurance plans typically cover a lot less services than the most basic European health insurance schemes. Falling sick can quickly turn into a horrendous financial nightmare for most Americans and their families. For some people, taking care of one's health is simply not in the cards. Also, the U.S. healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, both in absolute and in relative terms. Costs have steadily risen quicker than in any other developed country since the early 1980's and worryingly spiraled out of control over the past few years.

Apparently Canada and the US are 30th and 37th, ranked by bang for buck, or what you get for your dollar based on mortality, infant mortality, people without adequate healthcare etc,etc.

farfromglorified wrote:

How do you define "shotty healthcare"?

Are you aware that a large number of folks that file for bankruptcy do so because of an illness or an illness of a loved one. And, a large majority that do file for bankruptcy had health insurance. You don't see a problem with this?

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Actually, it's bending the will of millions to the needs of millions (though less millions, of course).

Well, it's bending the will of hundreds of millions to millions

Every other Western nation has some form of universal healthcare. Are they, then, unhealthy societies?

Of course. As are we, in certain respects.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

It's deeper than that, but I certainly agree that this, by default, is "Not My Problem".

Let me ask you this....If you see an individual in immediate need, ie, a car accident, someone drowning, do you just pass them by with the 'not my problem' attitude? I don't know, I'm just having a hard time believing this is how you really feel. How can you watch your fellow man suffer and blow it off as 'not my problem'? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your position.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Let me ask you this....If you see an individual in immediate need, ie, a car accident, someone drowning, do you just pass them by with the 'not my problem' attitude?

No. That is my problem.

I don't know, I'm just having a hard time believing this is how you really feel. How can you watch your fellow man suffer and blow it off as 'not my problem'? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your position.

I'm not watching my fellow man suffer. My fellow men are living happier and healthier lives than at nearly any point in their history.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

:eek:. I see this as a moral problem. I know you and I have very different philosophical perspectives. I hoping you are just playing devil's advocate here.

I'm certainly playing devil's advocate and not actually proposing those things. However, your reaction to those things should tell you much about my reaction to UHC.

Unless I am not understanding you, you are saying there is no problem with our current system.

This is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is not a single problem with our system. There are millions of problems with our system, each measured by the individual's standards.

U.S. healthcare coverage is one of the most incomplete and unequal in the developed world. About 40 million are not covered by any health insurance. The richest 5% of the population account for 55% of total healthcare spending while the bottom 50% of the population account for only 3% of total spending.

Furthermore, standard health insurance plans typically cover a lot less services than the most basic European health insurance schemes. Falling sick can quickly turn into a horrendous financial nightmare for most Americans and their families. For some people, taking care of one's health is simply not in the cards. Also, the U.S. healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, both in absolute and in relative terms. Costs have steadily risen quicker than in any other developed country since the early 1980's and worryingly spiraled out of control over the past few years.

Apparently Canada and the US are 30th and 37th, ranked by bang for buck, or what you get for your dollar based on mortality, infant mortality, people without adequate healthcare etc,etc.

Are you aware that a large number of folks that file for bankruptcy do so because of an illness or an illness of a loved one. And, a large majority that do file for bankruptcy had health insurance. You don't see a problem with this?

No, I don't see a problem with this. Here's why:

Health care is a service. It is certainly an important service, but it is still a service. Demand for health care services is at an all time high while supplies have not increased proportionally, meaning prices should be at all-time levels. Comparing US prices to nations with price controls and restricted markets is foolish and makes no sense. If I steal cars for everyone in my town and tell you that cars in my town are cheaper than yours, what have I proved about my virtues?

Your lingo above seems to assume that the top 5% paying for 55% of all services is a problem. How is UHC going to change that? The top 5% will pay for almost all services at that point, since they'll have to pay for nearly everyones' healthcare.

Of course healthcare is a large part of bankruptcies. Healthcare is very expensive. Expensive houses are also a large part of bankruptcies. Should we give away free mansions?

cornnifer

farfromglorified wrote:

It's deeper than that, but I certainly agree that this, by default, is "Not My Problem".





It is not my responsibility to keep this society healthy. It is my responsibility to keep myself healthy. A healthy society can contribute to this. A society that treats property with no respect and bends the will of millions to the needs of a few is not a healthy society.

The point is, IMO, the government has the not only the capability, but the responsibility to provide healthcare to ALL of its citizens. Not just those who can afford it (which is becoming harder and harder for many to do). For the government to be fully capable of providing this, and not do it, is, in fact void of moral responsibility.